Comment (37)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggExpelled: conspiracy or claptrap?
Ben Stein's documentary on Darwinism opens this weekend in the US. It does no credit to the cause of religion or even of intelligent design, says an American scientist.
Ben Stein’s film Expelled: No intelligence allowed will be released in the theatres on April 18. For many, the question will be how it does at the box office. However, judging from the amount of print and electronic media already spent on the movie, for others the issue is the debate between evolution and intelligent design. But is that the only issue?
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is a documentary film on a contentious subject, portraying advocates for intelligent design (ID) as victims of discrimination for their beliefs by the scientific community, which has widely rejected ID as pseudo-science, and blaming Darwin for a range of modern movements from Nazism and the Holocaust to Planned Parenthood. In the movie Stein does not say that belief in Darwinism alone leads to genocide, but allows David Berlinski (who is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle) to maintain that Darwinism was a "necessary though not sufficient" cause for it.
Two of the pro-evolution scientists interviewed for Expelled claim that they were interviewed under false pretenses. One, P.Z. Myers, a biologist and blogger at the University of Minnesota, Morris, reports that the quotes are edited in a way that misrepresent his original statements. The other, prominent skeptic and Scientific American writer Michael Shermer, who has seen the movie, also writes that his views were manipulated.
Expelled is about extremes. It does a huge disservice to both the ID movement and to science. As Chris Heard, an Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University writes in his blog, the film stresses that "Big Science" allows no dissent from the scientific theory of evolution. Surprisingly, the film gives no attention to people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins, or Francisco Ayala, or Howard van Till, or any number of less-well-known scientists who affirm both Christian faith and evolutionary biology.
Biologist Ken Miller, a Catholic and professor at Brown University, fully accepts modern scientific accounts of biological evolution, and has himself contributed to those understandings through his research. In Finding Darwin’s God, Miller writes about evolution, creationism, Intelligent Design, his own Christian faith, and the interplay between these. He comes down decidedly in favor of evolutionary biology and in favour of Christianity. Geneticist Francis Collins, a born-again Christian and head of the Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of Health, also affirms evolutionary biology and Protestant Christianity; his critique of the ID movement can be found in his book The Language of God.
Expelled is also NOT about science. I watched the movie at a private screening organized by Paul Lauer, the film’s marketing company. I was accompanied by a social sciences college student looking for scientific reasons or even detailed arguments for why scientists maintain either position: she went away unsatisfied.
So what is the movie about? Diana deReignier reports that Ben Stein has "been on a mission in terms of trying to get people to think more about the role of God in their lives for a while." His 2005 piece on Christmas has been circulating on the internet "creatively modified" for quite a while. It can be presumed that Mr Stein’s movie is about bringing God into academia and exposing the intolerance of "political correctness" over truth. Too bad that his attempt is misguided at best. You don’t bring God into science and academia through anything but honest inquiry and integrity. Expelled has neither.
Sonsoles De Lacalle is an associate professor of biomedical sciences at Charles Drew University in Los Angeles.
I think readers should go to this website before putting all their support behind this movie...there is a lot that is left to be desired regarding the accuracies of the stories portrayed there:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
I have seen the movie, and thought it excellent.
No one mentions that science is excluding those who don’t agree with the mainstream ideas, another being “global warming.” At the latest conference in the East, scientists who held a differing view were NOT ALLOWED---no admittance unless one accepts the faulty “science” of global warming. This trend is what Ben Stein documents.
The movie Expelled rightly criticizes intolerance in Academia, social Darwinism and atheist materialism, but it confounds many subjects and tries to blame the theory of Evolution for all this and to defend Intelligent Design (ID) as the correct answer to many questions about creation. In this I agree with Drs. De Lacalle and De Bellard that the movie is a disservice.
Looking at history we can see the mistake of making sweeping criticism against science or philosophy. It is thought that Newton’s physics influenced Kant’s view of religion so should we do away with Newtonian physics? Aristotle admitted infanticide so should we do away with Aristotle?
I think that philosopher Santiago Collado offers a valid criticism of ID from various perspectives, namely science, natural philosophy and theology (See http://www.unav.es/cryf/pagina_4.html#design). With regards to the latter he points to a significant flaw in ID, the philosophical notion of creation and the confusion between primary and secondary causes.
Collado explains that for St.Thomas Aquinas there is no conflict between God as First Cause and secondary causes. Everything proceeds from God as the first transcendent cause without any conflict of the causality of secondary causes according to their nature. As Fr. Larry indicated design and randomness are not opposed; they move on different planes of causality, namely Divine and secondary.
I actually see no problem with a young earth perspective; there is strong evidence for a young earth as we explore science. I know for certain, however, that evolution (from non life to life to appearance of creatures through changes from simple to complex)is immediatey rejected by biblical creationists. While it is true that one must not jump to conclusions on matters inexplicable today, the inexplicable in no way validates any form of evolution. Evolution is actually a red herring, a ploy of the devil to demolish creation, the Fall, and Redemption. Acceptance of any form of evolution immediately invalidates biblical Christianity; again, I am not referring to variation in species or to speciation over the years. Concerning the actual earth or outer universe, it really does not matter how old these are. What matters is creation of life on earth. Either God did it fiat, or it evolved. However, evolution can never be entertained because it does not make sense and is impossible. Even if one did not believe in creation one can see clearly that evolution is an impossibility. It is like trying to believe that cars evolved from pieces of metal and other material on the planet.
“From my experience this is a perspective that would be well taken by young earth Creationists.”
Well said Jim.
I think that the young earth creation hypothesis fails on both a scientific and Biblical scholarship level as it doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge the data which opposes their theories in either field.
Thank You Thomas for the reference to Cardinal Dulles’ article in First Things. It is rather apropos to the discussion of Expelled. I’ve just finished a second read of the article and these points caught my attention …
“They [science and religion] should search together for a more thorough understanding of one another’s competencies and limitations, and they should look especially for common ground. … Each discipline should therefore retain its integrity and yet be open to the insights and discoveries of the other.”
My being Christian and a scientist I’m on board, but as Expelled demonstrates; the science community, read Darwinian Evolutionists vs. everyone else, “common ground” is seemingly pretty far out there, if on the horizon at all.
“As a matter of policy, it is imprudent to build one’s case for faith on what science has not yet explained, because tomorrow it may be able to explain what it cannot explain today. History teaches us that the “God of the gaps” often proves to be an illusion.”
From my experience this is a perspective that would be well taken by young earth Creationists.
“Future scientific discoveries about evolution will presumably enrich religion and theology, since God reveals himself through the book of nature as well as through redemptive history. Science, however, performs a disservice when it claims to be the only valid form of knowledge, displacing the aesthetic, the interpersonal, the philosophical, and the religious.”
Well said and certainly an offering of Faith and Hope …
There is absolutely no evidence of evolutionary change over any period of time, let alone a long period thereof. I am not here talking of variation or speciation; I am talking of one kind changing into another, such as reptiles into birds, or land mammals into sea mammals, or something into vegetation, etc. From the Cambrian Explosion to today all we have seen is what we see today without any missing links. Darwin himself said that the fossils should prove his theory right when we find the missing links-none so far!! If evolution had any truth then the transitional forms would have been far more abundant than the end product, but there is absolutely none. And those that try to squeeze in a bird or two, or some other poor specimen as evidence have all failed. Besides, is that all they can muster? There should be millions for every kind of base animal that exists. Have you heard the recent latest? Huge dinosaur soft tissue found!! After over 70 million years ago? Truly ‘the fool hath said in his heart there is no God.’
David,
A couple of quotes from the Descent of Man…
Darwin on physical weakness and illness:
“Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
Darwin on race:
“The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization.”
“Here on this site people have tried to link Darwin with the theories of the Nazi’s. Darwin was a Unitarian.”
David,
Have you read The Descent of Man?
Darwin was actually firmly committed to the belief that black races were lower on his evolutionary ladder, and therefore they were inferior to the white races who were more evolved:
“The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilization.”
The Descent of Man clearly spells out Darwin’s beliefs about this issue, and it also proffers the serious error of moral Darwinism - the idea that morality is merely a subjective human construct that’s only purpose is to aide the philosophy of survival of the fittest.
This means that if it became convenient to us, then we could quite conceivably change our moral norms to embrace gravely immoral acts if they were deemed beneficial to our survival.
Darwin is a relativist, and he embraced a philosophy which opposed natural law - the foundation on which human rights, racial equality and objective morality is built.
Also, long before he wrote his fist work - The Origin of Species - Darwin had serious doubts about his Christian faith and he had embraced the philosophical error or materialism - which is an error opposed to Christian thought regarding the nature of man.
His ideas also underpin the eugenics movement - which Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, pioneered. Darwin believed that intellectually and physically challenged people were a hindrance to the continued wellbeing of the human race.
“If we accept pure Creationism then what are we to do with the evidence we have of change over a long period of time?”
David, you are falling into a false dichotomy here by suggesting that you have to accept either Darwinian evolutionary theory OR fundamentalist creationism.
There are other alternatives, and for a better explanation I recommend that you read this excellent article by Avery Dulles called God and Evolution:
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6038
As I said, creationism and evolution can never jell. transition from one kind to another is impossible, has never happened as the evidence shows, and will never happen. The thing about the stars and their light-years away from earth is not a problem in origins. When God made Adam how old was he? Anyone seeing him might assume he was in his thirties or twenties; but he was only one day old at creation. Similarly, when God created the earth he made all things visible to earthlings instantaneously; just as Adam was made old (20s or 30s)instantly and not wet behind the ears, no baby smell. The fact that somethings cannot be understood is no reason to cry foul. Science is not God; it is simply knowledge that we gain from nature and every other source. Revelation (Bible)is also another source of science. We do not believe in naturalism, but in the God of nature; through him we understand how the world was framed and life made.
As someone above pointed out, Evolutionary Theory is an attempt to explain what we know happened. It’s a working hypothesis. Why things happen, why life evolved, is a matter for philosophy and religion. If we accept pure Creationism then what are we to do with the evidence we have of change over a long period of time? If the Earth is 5 or 6 thousand years old then how can we be looking at light from distant stars that took a billion years to get here? I think focusing on Darwin is a distraction. He was not the first to wonder what fossils meant. Also, some people here talk about him as if he had evil intent. When I read his book, ‘The Voyage Of The Beagle’, I was struck by how much he was offended by the injustice and degradation of slavery when he was in Brazil. It’s obvious that he did not accept the ideas of superiority that are sometimes ascribed to him by Creationists. Here on this site people have tried to link Darwin with the theories of the Nazi’s. Darwin was a Unitarian. During WWII in Europe the chalice and flame of the Unitarians was a recognized anti-nazi symbol. Finally; I would like a Creationist not to tell me what they believe, but to explain away the evidence to the contrary.
I find it quite amazing that we grant evolution the carta blanche in how things ‘transitioned’ or passed on to ‘higher’ forms of life. To me this is quite misleading; for evolution cannot in any way explain this. Reptiles becoming birds: this is a total impossibility; when we consider all the major changes to take place and still have the creature living through every stage is a feat which boggles the mind. This applies to every form of life. Just think of it. Evolution is a theory that is sheer fantasy. If the foundation is untrue then everything is built on falsehood, no matter how right it may sound. Just to account for life alone is an impossibility. I am pleased, however, that the discussion concentrates on the movie and not on science, whether creation or evolution. The movie is about freedom to express alternate views of origins. And this is what we all need; otherwise we will be like those who riot, kill, and intimidate those who disagree with them.
Many comments on this topic demonstrate perhaps pre-conceived expectations or bias. I paid for and saw the movie/documentary this past weekend. As a person with post-graduate education in Biochemistry and Biology I found Expelled to be delightful and in some respects eye-opening. The final interview sequence with Richard Dawkins alone was worth the price of admission. Indeed I’d pay again to go back and hear/see just that last interview. I highly recommend the movie to anyone with the slightest interest.
I’ve read the books from Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box (elegant and insightful) to Francis Collins The Language of God and many others. In all honestly I’m having a hard time breaking down to spend the time to read Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, perhaps I will soon. This is in some regard a demonstration of my own bias; with a modicum of complaint that I don’t have the time to read everything; and thus one chooses, so bias is something we must all deal with.
In the Big Science realm bias is incredibly tangible as Expelled only too well demonstrates in the specific area of Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. For many fields of endeavor bias hinders or in it’s extreme prevents the publication of alternate data or different interpretations of the same experiments and data sets. Personally, I find many very interesting questions or alternate interpretations of experiments and data, as well as philosophical arguments, posed by I.D. that Big Science is loathe to hear or seriously look at. Of course truth will not be denied, but the willful intent to “shield” others, children or the public at large, from the arguments and the data under the guise that Big Science knows better is well … sad. Perhaps when the truth is known there will be a well deserved lowering of the pedestal upon which Big Science sits.
I applaud Ben Stein and all those who have gone to the effort to air what Big Science overwhelmingly wants to silence.
I have seen the film and find it both informative AND entertaining. I have read the comments on this article and find them wanting.
The crux of the film is this: The present environment in science and acedimia frown on scientists of religious faith. If you are a scientist and a person of faith, you are considered of a lesser quality. I think the question that Stein proposes is,Is this true? Not whether your an ID or evolutionist, but whether you are given a handicap score because you are a person of faith. Regardless, why should there be a conflict between evolution and intelligent design?
Evolution theorizes about the parts, and intelligent theorizes about the whole. It’s when one evokes omniopous on the other that problems occur.
A majority of the comments here seem to have evolution trump ID. Evolution can explain only limited things, like how one life form transits from one form into another. It cannot explain how life began.
Are we so hubristic to posit evolution as a singularity?
Page 1 of 3 : 1 2 3 >